This is an extract from a report which was prepared for the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Office Central Research Unit in June 1999.

The Role and Effectiveness of Community Councils with Regard to Community Consultation

6. Conclusions

Community councils have survived and, in some cases, prospered for quarter of a century. Yet their role has not been reviewed systematically at national level since the deliberations of the Wheatley Commission led to their creation. The research on which this report is based aimed to establish the role and effectiveness of community councils as community consultees by examining:

· the extent to which community councils are performing a useful role and effectively representing and promoting their communities;
· factors which contribute to, and detract from, the role and effectiveness of community councils with regard to community consultation; and
· how community councils fit into the wider pattern of community representation.

This concluding chapter draws on the evidence to answer the four questions implicit in these aims by considering whether community councils play a useful role; their effectiveness in representing and promoting their communities; the factors that contribute to and detract from their role and effectiveness with regard to community consultation and how they fit into wider patterns of community consultation.

Performing a useful role

One of the key findings of this report is that community councils can perform many different roles, all potentially useful but some more relevant than others to community consultation. The potential variety of roles (see Chapter 3) contributes to the uncertainties about role and status detected amongst many community councils and local authorities, many of whom would appreciate greater clarity. A few local authorities have provided some guidance on particular roles whilst leaving community councils to decide how widely they wish to define their roles.

Some community councils perform several roles simultaneously whereas others concentrate on one or two. Some may perform no useful role although this was hard to detect: disappointment with community councils often arises from a conception of their role which differs from that of the community council itself or which the community council finds hard to fulfil.

Differences in the roles performed can be detected within and between local authority areas. The absence of statutory duties and a power to levy taxes combined with the breadth of the statutory definition of the purpose of community councils and their dependence on funding and goodwill from local authorities has created the conditions for the variety of roles to develop. The differences are, therefore, partly accounted for in the different patterns of funding, liaison and status accorded community councils by local authorities in different parts of Scotland. To some extent, no comparison should be made between community councils in different areas since local authorities have created very different roles for them. This is particularly the case in relation to roles concerned with community consultation. However, the scope available to community councils to develop their own role in different ways makes some comparison possible.

The roles played by community councils include two – social and community development and service provision or minor improvement works – that enhance the visibility of the community council and improve life in the area. They fall firmly into the scope of the last part of the statutory definition of the purpose of community councils ‘to take such action in the interests of that community as appears to it to be expedient and practical’. Their relevance to community consultation is that they promote the visibility of the community council and bring community councillors into contact with people and issues in the area. Three other roles played by most community councils are more directly concerned with community consultation:

· putting pressure on local authorities and other public bodies over issues of concern to members of the community;
· providing a sounding board for local authorities and other public bodies in planning and decision-making processes;
· providing a sounding board for local authorities and other public bodies in relation to service provision.

There is not always a clear division in practice between these – community councils and local authority departments may at the same time want to discuss service standards, for example. However, it is useful to distinguish the likely source of the initiative. In relation to the first, it comes from community councils and local authorities and other public bodies can choose to respond in whatever way they wish. In the second, the initiative comes from the local authority or other public body and community councils feel free to respond or not, depending on the priority they attach to the issue or the time or cost that responding would entail. In relation to the third, the initiative may come from either party and the other is free to decide whether and how to respond.

The sixth role of community councils – liaising with other community and voluntary organisations – is a means to fulfilling the other five roles as well as potentially having value in its own right, for example in securing co-operation for a project. This is the role of community councils on which clear guidance about expectations is hardest to obtain.

Clearly, community councils perform these roles to different degrees of effectiveness, the next issue considered.

Effectiveness in representing and promoting their community

The definition of effectiveness used in this study stressed the socio-economic characteristics and electoral or other mandate of community councillors, their awareness of and ability to transmit the views of their population and the willingness of local authorities and other public bodies to listen to community councils. These are considered in turn.

Community councils do not reflect perfectly the socio-economic and demographic structure of their population. While they share with local government and other forms of elected government a low representation of women, young people, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities, in some respects they achieve higher levels of participation, particularly by women. The age profile of community councils is often particularly unrepresentative and some local authorities and community councils are tackling this with some success. Some others are trying to tackle the issue of minority ethnic group representation by considering how structural and other impediments to inclusion can be overcome.

The legitimacy and accountability of community councils – and hence their credibility in representing the views of their local population – is perceived by many local government officers and councillors as diminished by the low levels of interest in standing for election and the low turnouts achieved when elections take place. Some local authorities are successfully promoting higher turnouts by the use of postal ballots and in other ways. Efforts to improve interest in standing for election have been less apparent. Party political involvement would increase the publicity surrounding nominations and elections, yet the absence of such involvement is a feature of community councils that is very highly valued by all involved within community councils and in local government.

This report has shown variety in how community councils measure local opinion and in the selections they make about the issues on which to express a view on behalf of the community. Achieving a measure of local opinion may not always require a survey or public meeting and some community councils use newsletters, advice surgeries and other contact with communities of interest to gauge opinion. Co-ordinating local opinion is possibly the most difficult role community councils are expected to perform and the one on which either least guidance or conflicting guidance is provided. On the one hand community councils may be expected to provide a definitive view from a community about an issue, on the other they are expected to express the range of opinions.

Some local authorities have recently encouraged community councils to provide a justification or description of the source of their views. This is not an unreasonable imposition and helps clarify what is expected of community councils. There is a parallel here with debates about local government: community councils are being expected by some local authorities to engage in their own process of democratic renewal to establish both a stronger electoral mandate and a more consultative approach. However, local authorities and other public bodies should be aware of:

· the rights of community councils to be selective in the issues on which they engage in systematic surveys of public opinion;
· the value of public bodies themselves engaging in surveys or other tests of community opinion if that is what is required.

The pattern of overlapping memberships of community councils and other voluntary organisations is a valuable characteristic in enhancing effective representation and promotion. This is assisted by schemes that allow direct representation and co-option and by the tendency for members of community councils also to be active in other community groups. However, some communities contain many more voluntary organisations than could be represented on a community council. Some community councils make efforts to rectify any gaps through co-option, liaison and in other ways but this is likely to be an imperfect process in many cases. Some local authorities have developed alternative processes for consulting certain communities of interest.

The evidence that community councils are generally impressed by the willingness of local authorities and other public bodies to listen to them needs to be considered along with the evidence that many feel some frustration about difficulties on particular issues or policies and occasionally with particular officers or councillors. The ways in which contact between community councils and public officials takes place in consultative structures is considered in the last section, below.

Factors that contribute to and detract from role and effectiveness

This report has identified several factors that contribute to the effectiveness of community councils in representing and promoting their communities and in contributing to public consultation. The multiple role of local authorities is the most important of these.

The evidence has shown the dependence of community councils on local authorities for finance, office services, information, support and a role in consultation. The pattern across Scotland varies and there is evidence that limited resources in some cases constitute an impediment to greater effectiveness. Recent cuts in grant levels in some areas have damaged not only the effectiveness of community councils but also their belief in local authorities’ claims about the value they see in community councils or community consultation. However, the most ambitious conceptions of the role of community councils could never be fulfilled in most areas, within anything like the present roles and status of community councils. In addition, some evidence of a few community councils barely or not spending what is available to them suggests other factors at work.

No definitive prescription can be provided of how to ensure effectiveness. There are no proven links between high levels of funding and effectiveness. In a few cases though, there seems to be some association between relatively low levels of funding, negative attitudes by councillors and reluctance to involve community councils in consultative structures. In a few cases there appears to be a link between high levels of funding, positive attitudes, practices and policies from local authorities and effectiveness by community councils in being listened to. However, in most areas the policies, practice and attitudes of local authority elected members and officers are seen as good in part and poor in part by community councils, making it impossible to detect any cause and effect. This perception can change over time and several local authorities have attempted to do more to create the conditions for effectiveness recently by clarifying their expectations of community councils, providing more training and resources, and boosting the role of codes of practice.

Although community councils may regret their reliance on local authorities for financial support, few alternative funding models exist apart from central government funding, suggested by a few, and power to levy a small tax, suggested by fewer. Important as resources are seen to be by community councils, the attitudes, policies and practices of local authorities and other public bodies are seen by many as just as important. The considerable efforts being made in this field of democratic renewal by local authorities are inevitably perceived by community councillors as more mixed in success than formal statements of policy suggest. Effectiveness is also enhanced, community councillors feel, if information is well presented, does not impose an unreasonable timescale for reply and does not all come at once. Some would appreciate having access to professional expertise – or the funds to pay for it – in addition to the clerical and administrative support that most receive. Recent training provision – largely focused on information provision rather than induction or skills training – by local authorities is appreciated by community councils. The relative absence of induction training provides a contrast with other areas of public service such as school board membership.

Wider patterns of community consultation

In contemporary moves by local authorities to renew local democracy, community councils have been seen either very positively or more pragmatically as a valuable element in community consultation. The variety in their treatment in decentralisation and consultation makes comparison across Scotland difficult, but a few local authorities provide them with a distinctive role, most see them as having the same access to the policy process as other community groups and one local authority prefers to consult voluntary organisations. Community councils are represented on many of the area committees and forums, partnership boards and working parties that attempt to develop and implement policy in specific localities.

With a few exceptions, the consensus of opinion in local government is that community councils should have no special status or role in community consultation, since all voluntary and interest groups should be entitled to express their views and play a part in civic affairs. Most community councils would agree with this analysis though some argue that the statutory basis for their existence suggests a special role. In practice local authorities often grant community councils a distinctive role as consultees perhaps along with selected other groups. Planning control provides a unique and distinct role and in addition, in the structures which arise from the decentralisation and democratic renewal agenda, community councils frequently appear and are sometimes the only representatives of their locality, apart from councillors, invited to participate.

While not generally being given any distinctive status, community councils can, therefore, be a convenient way of meeting local authorities’ desires to engage local people in policy debates. Without community councils, many local authorities would find it hard to decide which community groups to invite to the table. With community councils, some local authorities find it easy to forget to consider whether other voluntary groups should be invited to the table.

Community councils in most parts of Scotland play an important role in civic life, extending the boundaries of public debate on many issues from the council chamber and the meeting rooms of specialist voluntary organisations to a wider, public forum. The most striking feature, though, of the way community councils fit into the wider pattern of community representation is the variety of experience found. This has been a continuous strand throughout this report: community councils defy any attempt at generalisation other than the truism that their role and effectiveness as community consultees varies throughout Scotland.

The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Department or the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Further extracts can be found here

The full report can be found here